A Decade of super low interest rates

The Federal funds rate is the interest rate that a depository institution (e.g. banks) lends funds maintained at the Federal Reserve to another depository institution, and this rate since October of 2008, has not been higher than 1.5%, and currently resides at 1.25% as of October, 2017, after being quiescent at 0.25% for over seven years, indicating that for the last ten years, the United States along with other nations, has had an historically low Federal Funds rate, which is completely abnormal to the history of this rate from previous decades.

While there are many ostensible reasons why the interest rates have been so low for so long, the most prevalent reason given by mainstream media is because of the financial crisis, specifically the housing mortgage crisis and the collateral debt obligations (CDO) created in order for banks to profit, only for the buyers of such to discover that many CDOs were essentially toxic, leading to the severe discounting or outright default of these CDOs, along with the material assets (e.g. houses) plummeting in value, effectively making these mortgage loans significantly higher than the revised intrinsic value of such homes, plunging the loaners of mortgages along with the buyers of CDOs to the brink of a catastrophic meltdown.  The Fed felt that they had no choice but to effectively drop their Federal Fund rate to essentially zero, so as to postpone and to stave off debt which already could not successfully be serviced to the lowest level that could be created in the hopes that by doing so, this would allow debtors to get their house in order.

These super low interest rates did reduce the debt service load for many debtors, so that debts that would have cost billions of dollars more to service, were essentially transferred from the debtor to those that had monetary assets (e.g. savers), so that those that previously parked their money in Certificates of Deposit (CD) or other cash-like instruments, while still having such available to purchase, discovered to their dismay, that CDs rather than paying their somewhat traditional 5.25% were instead now yielding 0.25%. 

This would imply that in today's new super lower interest rate environment, that it has never been better to be a debtor than a saver, which is true to a certain extent, and that extent basically only is accurate for those that have excellent credit and large monetary assets, for those people and institutions can receive loans at rates previously unheard of for any appreciable length of time, and thereby leverage up their investments so as to make money via real estate or equities or other financial maneuvers.  On the other hand, while debtors find that servicing their debt has been significantly reduced, the problem that they still have is the fact that they have debt that they cannot seem to escape from, for debt can never be paid back, if the debtor cannot generate the income or growth to pay such debt back, and if the assets, if there are any, used as collateral for such a debt, are worth less than the debt, indicating that the creditor will not wish to foreclose on such a debt, for there is little or nothing to collect, but rather the creditor will desire tokeep the debt open forever, continually bleeding their debtors, so as to at least receive something, for if and when, the creditor has to write off what are uncollectible debts, than the creditor has lost that asset for good.

A decade of super low interest rates are a reflection that the economic growth rate in virtually all western nations is very low, that the debt load within these nations is already so high that higher interest rates on debtors would wrought financial disaster, and that therefore continual low inflation, low growth, and an overall precarious financial situation is the norm, for the balance sheets of nations such as America, shows a monstrous debt load, increasing yearly, with absolutely no fiscal plan to deal with it, so that the creditors of American debt, recognize that interest rates must continue to remain low into the foreseeable future, or a worldwide recession will occur, or much, much worse.

Advertising and that pleasurable feeling

"Just the facts, ma'am", has little or nothing to do with advertising that consumers are inundated with each and every day, no matter, the medium that they engage it with.  That is to say, while advertisers could spend an inordinate amount of time listing all the reasons why consumers should pick their particular product over a competing source or an alternative source, fact by fact, they seldom bother to do such.  Rather, advertising is much more about trying to create an emotional connection between the consumer and the product that is actually being advertised, so that facts for the most part are put aside, especially since facts for a given product, as in its particular effectiveness, are often illusive, transitory, and not necessarily true, so rather than being caught making claims of some dubious veracity, advertisers find it far more lucrative and successful to advertise in a manner that invokes good and pleasurable feelings in an audience. 

For instance, most everybody wants on some level to be liked, or admired, or respected, and other attributes of that sort, because it makes them feel better about their validity and about themselves.  Advertisers are well aware of this need for self-validation, so they make it their purpose to advertise products that will make you feel that if you own such, you will feel better or more accomplished about yourself.  So too, advertisements are a way to take a product and to make it appear to be something that if you are able to own it, your status rises because you have it.

While advertisements could make it their point to appeal to consumers in both a logical and straightforward manner, they recognize that they are far more successful in selling products to consumers through emotional tie-ins, that tap into the inner yearning and desires of consumers, so that by partaking of a certain something,  this will enable their customers to be part of something that helps to make them feel better and more complete about themselves, which is often why advertisements through their imagery and music, construct a storyline in which the real objective of the story is for you to want to capture that emotional feeling of the narrative.  This means, for people that are enraptured by a particular advertisement, that they will want to purchase it, because they believe that by doing so, they will add that feeling to their persona. 

What many people fail to recognize when they speak of the "necessities" of life, is that everyone already knows that they need food, water, shelter, and so on and so forth, but they also consider necessities the things that will allow them to within their social milieu, to hold their own, and advertisers are able to exploit this over and over again, so that people feel strongly that they must have certain purchases in order to conform and to affirm that they are part of that social group, or even, beyond it, even though, from an objective standpoint, they really are not. 

So that, the real reason that there is so much advertisement in the United States, isn't because the advertisers are trying to provide necessary pertinent information to their audience base, but rather, to make people feel that they need this specific product in order to feel good about themselves and/or to demonstrate that they have achieved something of real status by virtue of their ownership of that special product.

The Eviscerated 4th Amendment

Our 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…" but the way that no-knock raids are conducted in America on a routine basis, in which, as reported by the vox.com, "Cops do 20,000 no-knock raids a year," clearly indicates that the police can raid just about anybody's home under the most dubious of circumstances if they simply justify such a raid by classifying the subject property that has been designated as needing a no-knock raid as being too dangerous for a normal warrant and/or that a warning would allow such to destroy evidence of criminal activity.  This pretty much makes it relatively easy for police to specifically target individuals in a manner that their 4th Amendment rights are effectively null and void.

In addition, to houses being routinely broken into by policing authorities under the guise of the necessity of doing so to catch criminals and to reduce crime, so then, have the police become more and more aggressive in routinely conducting unreasonable searches of people out in the public sphere, such as in walking, or in the driving of their vehicles, so that, targeted citizens, have effectively no protection from searches and seizures at any time that they are in the public sphere, as well as no protection within their own private space, if the policing authorities have determined that they are a subject of interest to them.

This effectively means that our 4th Amendment is in tatters, for no longer is the citizen sovereign of his own space or his own person, subject only to reasonable searches and seizures, specific to true probable cause, as well as to a specific description of the place so being search, and specific to the targeted item alleged to be on the person or premises, but instead has become subject to any search and seizure at any time, for any reason, if the policing authorities simply decide that this is what they want to do, for the justice system, consistently, backs up such in the court of law.

This means, in effect, that citizens are never presumed to be innocent, but all are presumed to be guilty, and therefore, knowing that such are guilty, the police construct a narrative that is consistent with their actions, and the citizens suffer from it, so that false arrests are made all of the time, for gathering of information, for criminal charges, for intimidation, for harassment, for control, and so on and so forth, all in service to the policing agency of this country.

It has been said that a man's home is his castle, so that each individual can be made to feel that he always has some space within this world that is inviolable by anyone of any authority at anytime.  That is a most basic tenet of true freedom and to therefore to violate one's castle, the policing authority of the state should be held accountable at the highest level to this written Constitution, for when a man has no sanctuary from the policing arm of the state, he is not his own man, and he is not free.  So too, your person is your own, your body is your own, your mind is your own, your spirit is your own, so when these are also subject to being seized, or controlled, by the policing authority of the state, so that to leave one's own home, endangers your person, than you aren't free, you aren't a man, and you have becomeeffectively the chattel property of the state, having no rights that need be respected by that state.

Public Lands and royalties

More than 25 percent of America lands are actually owned equally by all Americans as federal public lands.  Some of these lands are quite valuable, for their natural resources, such as oil, natural gas, and coal, of which, one might think, since these are public lands, that the extractor of these mineral resources would be a Federally owned company, such as the "Federal Oil Resource" company, but in actual fact when it comes to the extraction of oil, for instance, the government instead of creating its own Federally owned company, typically leases its land to publically held oil corporations, such as Shell Oil or ExxonMobil and similar, and in return for these leases receives royalties from any oil discovered and extracted from these lands.  That, on the surface, might seem to be okay, as these mega corporations are very adept at the business of extracting and developing oil resources, but at the same time, they are experts at all the angles, of which there are many angles, of negotiating contracts that favor them as oppose to favoring the American public, that owns the land, and is managed by public employees on behalf of the people.

 For instance, royalty contracts vary depending upon whether the State owns the land, such as Texas, North Dakota, and so on, or whether the oil is offshore, that is in the outer continental shelf, or whether it is on Federal land.  One State that has a high royalty rate for oil is Texas, which sits at 25%, which is a boon for the people that reside in the State of Texas, than somewhat surprisingly the royalty rate for ocean continental shelf drilling is currently set at 18.75%, whereas the public land based royalty is set at 12.5%, which is the exact same percentage that the royalty has been at since 1920.  So then one must ask the basic questions, since 1920, have oil companies gotten bigger or smaller, have oil companies gotten more profitable or less profitable, have oil become a commodity of more importance or less importance, and in each of these instances, the obvious answer is essentially the same, oil is by far the most important commodity in the world, bar none, in addition to the fact that oil companies are amongst the highest stock market capitalization companies, of which the ExxonMobil market capitalization as of October 6, 2017, was $346.21 billion dollars, with its greatest year for sales being 2007 at $404 billion dollars, and their profit in that year being $40.6 billion dollars.

All of the above, would clearly indicate that the royalty fee of 12.5% is far too low, but like any business that is "getting over" on the public, the oil companies have no reason nor do they have any incentive to want to renegotiate such a royalty, and at the same time, since these are public lands and therefore not private, the incentive by our public servants to construct or insist upon a new deal, lacks vigor and energy.  The bottom line, though, is that the current construction of leasing, royalties, bonding, and bidding, favors the oil companies at the expense of the people, so that these oil companies profit upon the wealth of the natural resources that the people own, in short, then, the people are being robbed of the wealth that is theirs to begin with, enriching the oil barons at their expense.

Plausible Denial

Most Americans like to consider themselves to be good, conscientious, and caring citizens, especially in regards to their everyday interactions, and when things go wrong and they get upset with something so that they do something ugly, that this is considered to be the exception to their normal everyday behavior and never the rule.  So that, the basic feeling is that our laws in regards to crime and punishment are fair laws in the sense that when somebody commits a crime against another person, for instance, such as assault and battery, or rape, or murder that it is justified that they are punished for having done so.

The above seems to make sense, that is to say, when somebody commits a crime against another person, that they that committed the crime should be punished for it.  However, modern life is far more complicated than we might imagine, for not only are there in almost any given situation, often real mitigating circumstances, but the responsibility of the ultimate bad act, itself, may not entirely be in the hands of the person committing it.

For instance, look at the vociferous debate about gun control, so that those that decry all the gun violence that is committed in America, make a strong argument, that the very nature of guns which allows people to basically be able to point and shoot at their target with lethal effectiveness, is the reason why we have so many deaths and injuries via gun violence, each and every year.  That is to say, that guns are extremely effective in their purpose, which is in essence, the killing of others, and that the abundance of such lethal weapons in the hands of those that are less morally adept than others, is a significant reason why so many people are killed each and every year via gun violence.  The lawful response to such is to incarcerate the purveyors of gun violence in prison, while within that argument, there is at its core, the belief that the manufacture, distribution, and sales of these weapons should be severely curtailed.  On the other hand, the defenders of our current gun laws hide behind either the 2nd Amendment or like to come up with cute little sayings, that guns don't kill, that people do, but in actuality, it is the gun used by people, that does indeed do the killing.

Further to the point, guns don't just create themselves out of thin air, for they are first designed, than manufactured, before being distributed and sold through gun stores or gun shows; in addition to the fact that necessary parts, machines, and infrastructure has to be available in order for all of this to readily occur.  This means, that those that make and sell the parts that are utilized in order to construct handguns by gun manufacturers, as well as the final manufacturers of these legal weapons, ultimately have a responsibility that they must and should be held accountable to.  That is to say, those that are in the process that enables a gun to be made, be it the purchasing of goods, the design of such goods, the creation of the goods, the quality control of such goods, all are contributing to the final product, which is a firearm, that is a lethal weapon, of which, for a certainty, is used in this country for exactly the task it was designed for.

This means, that if you are in any part of the gun industry, periphery or not, that you as an individual, have a responsibility to the ultimate and very predictable outcome of the product that you aid and abet, whether you wish to own up to that fact or not, for that is your choice, but at least be cognizant of it, because that is the truth.

The Real Commander in Chief

According to our Constitution, the President is our Commander in Chief, which is why pundits like to write history, with words like Bush's war, or Kennedy's war, or FDR's war, and so on and so forth, since each of these Presidents were the respective Commander in Chief when America was at war.  The problem though with this simple-minded viewpoint is the absolute distortion it actually provides to what is really going on behind the scenes when it comes to America and its wars.  For instance, with the exception of FDR, no President has ever served more than two terms, or a limit of eight years, whereas Generals and other military figures can and have served decades in the "service" to their country, not to mention the armament corporations that are built to last seemingly forever.

This means, when our President that is elected by the people, comes into office as our Commander in Chief they are up against, the military-industrial edifice, which has as of 2017, a budget of $582.7 billion dollars, which represents more than 50% of the government's expenditure on what is considered to be "discretionary spending".  This would clearly indicate that any President, would if he was determined to butt heads with defense spending, find himself thoroughly outmanned in every avenue of influence upon such, for the military-industrial complex is so gargantuan large, so ingrained, and so entrenched, that no single man, no matter his position, even as Commander in Chief, would be able to make a meaningful impact without some other massive government agency of power working side-by-side with the Commander in Chief, and that just isn't going to happen, because the history of worldly power, has been almost always the history of he who has the guns, has the Might and he who has the Might, makes the rules.

There are, however, been twelve Presidents of the United States, that were actually generals, of course, not all generals are equal, so eight of those Presidents, while being generals, were not truly close to being at the pinnacle of military power, but still that leaves four generals that were forces in of themselves, that knew intimately the military-industrial complex, and could truly be said, to be the real Commander in Chief. The first of these four was George Washington, unanimously elected twice as President, the "father of our country" and its General and Commander-in-Chief of its armies, of which, the men that served our newfound nation were absolutely loyal to our first President, George Washington.  Next, there was Andrew Jackson, who fought not only in our revolutionary war, but also was the hero of the War of 1812, with his masterful stand in New Orleans and reached the rank of Major General, of which those that served under Jackson, revered him.  Ulysses S. Grant became Lieutenant General of the Union Army forces during our Civil War, was Lincoln's favorite and most important general, and was twice elected President of the United States. The last formidable Commander in Chief, was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commanding General of the Allied Powers in Europe during World War II, and was twice elected President of America.  Each of these men, were true Commander in Chiefs, for they were military men of the highest order, and thereby held meaningful sway over military personnel of all ranks, yet even Eisenhower, warned Americans that "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

This warning, given by Eisenhower, was prescient, for the military-industrial complex since the time that this speech was presented in January of 1961, has gone on to become a power onto itself, controlled not by the American people, controlled not by the elected Commander in Chief, but controlled by unelected military officials in conjunction with their massive defense contractors to rule the roost, and to essentially determine American international warand armaments policy without legislativeand without executive input, for their influence is conducted behind the scenes, in which they are never outvoted, never outwitted, and never told what to do by a so-called Commander in Chief.

The Disruptor: Cell Phones

Depending upon what generation that you are, you may or may not have had the experience of smart cell phones being in the hands of individuals in a classroom setting or a business setting, if not, as most people are now well aware, smart cell phones are ubiquitous in both areas nowadays and therein lies a massive problem.  While the usage of cell phones in school as well as in a business environment can theoretically be a benefit, or certainly be a convenience for staying in touch with others, the lack of discipline and self-control in the usage of these cell phones, in addition, to the ability to use cell phones to surreptitiously record audio or video has a serious impact on society, which is typically not for the better.

On the positive side of the ledger for cell phone usage in school or at work, is that it allows people to stay in real-time contact with critical information, whether that be personal or school or work related, which has a value, especially for tasks that require real-time input from the other party.  However, other than that, pretty much everything else about cell phone usage at school or at work is an unmitigated disaster.

The very first problem that people have with cell phones is that significantly way too many people are essentially subjugated to them.  That is to say, if your phone rings, or buzzes, or does whatever that indicates that you have received a text message, or phone call, or email, it doesn't seem to matter much what you are doing, or whether you actually respond to that disruption immediately, because the very fact that you are aware that you have a new  "contact" with the outside world, breaks often your concentration, in a manner in which losing that focus, impairs the task that you were currently working on.  For instance, ask yourself the question, would you want the surgeon working upon your body to have their cell phone in their pocket while conducting such surgery and the most probable answer is that you would most definitely not!  The reason that you don't want your surgeon to have that cell phone when performing an intensive specific task is that you do not want to see their cognitive process, their intense focus, interrupted by an unanticipated outside source.

The above actually indicates that it isn't even good enough to not answer your cell phone or to not respond to your cell phone when you know you have been contacted, because in order to really maintain focus and concentration you need the cell phone to either be out of your possession completely or completely silenced so that the interruption of your train of thought never occurs.  Nevertheless, students and workers, actually keep their cell phones all the way on, or have them on vibrate, believing wrongly that they can successfully do a good job or study while having this constant distraction, or actually not really caring, because they don't much care about school or their job performance to begin with.

The fact that so many people are enthralled with their cell phones, means that you will see students doing just about anything to camouflage their usage of, to the discredit of their academic performance; as well as in the workplace you will come across disturbing things, such as when someone that is directing traffic on a road, or repairing such, rather than keeping their eyes and concentration on traffic, or on the repairing of that infrastructure, actually have their eyes down on their cell phone, because they figure, they can still sort of competently do their job, or that they can actually multi-task.

All of the above, really means, the self-control needed by so many to keep their concentration, so as to actually perform their jobs well, is sorely lacking, making for poorer students, less efficient workers, and unnecessarily increasing danger when tasks that require focused attention have been disrupted.  This would indicate that the usage of cell phones should be far more restricted, far more often.

Bigger societies, bigger inequalities

There are enormous economic and societal advantages to both size and scale, in which many people are able to take advantage of such by virtue of the incredibly cheap pricing for food, for clothes, and for everyday conveniences that we take for granted, including clear and abundant water, electricity, and the basic infrastructure that modern society provides for us.  In order for all of these good things to have happened, people have had to put their minds and tools together, and build upon known principles in order to effectively and efficiently build things up for the benefit of all.  Thereby, these creature comforts that modern society has are a real boon to the overall quality of life.

However, the sheer size of modern day communities, allows a very small select few, to rise well above the common man, and while this may not be an unmitigated evil, it offers extreme danger to any society which purports to be of the people, by the people, and for the people.  The reason that an elite so often arises in modern society, is that in order to run such a society, powers are delegated to judicial, legislative, and executive branches, of which having such power there are the inherent temptations of favoritism, cronyism, and the making of laws favoring one group or specific set of individuals in such a manner, that a playing field that purports to being level, is in fact, tilted to favor a specific group or set of individuals.  While not everyone plays that game, many find the lure of doing so, so beneficial, that they sign up for it.  This then benefits those that ostensibly are in the service to the public, via inside information, proxies, or kickbacks, while making those that have been so favored, immensely rich by virtue of being privy to favored rules, favored laws, and favored choices, with little or no interference to contend with, providing them with a wide open highway to mega success.  While the general public does often benefit, their benefit comes at a cost, of which that cost is the unfairness and inequality in justice, in taxes, in structure, in opportunity, in costs, and in legacy, of which the many being cheated a little, permits the privileged favored elites to reap massive amounts of unwarranted money based on that overall volume, repeated and recycled to those elites over and over again.

So too, most people know their neighbors or at least know some basic things about their neighbors, simply because of the proximity of such, and therefore see them at stores, or schools, or other such public places.  However, in societies that are so big, so rich, so unequal, and so advanced, there are people that you will never see in person, because they don't go to the same restaurants that you go to, they don't travel in the same circles as you do, they don't go to public schools, and they don't frequent public areas, they are actually set aside, purposely set aside, so that they can enjoy theirs without having to interact with you.  These people are above it all, for they often get their power and wealth, at the expense of the many, so as to permanently favor these certain select few.  Additionally, people in power, typically have no desire to cede any of that power or any of that wealth, which is why taxes are so complex and so convoluted, why rules are so winding and so contradictory, and why the rich and powerful do not try to purposely embarrass or to impress upon the general public just how rich that they really are, for if all the wealth in America was divided equally amongst the adult population, each individual adult would have, as reported by Wikipedia.com as of November, 2016, "$344,692 per adult," but the median of such in America is just "$44,977 per adult".  Is that then the nature of capitalism, or is that really a small clique unfairly furthering its own, at the expense of the many?

To secede from the Union is not an option

Abraham Lincoln was elected by the people of the United States, in which, Lincoln promised not to interfere with the institution of slavery as conducted within the southern states, for he felt he had no Constitutional right to do so, yet, because the south lost the election, and because the south perceived that Lincoln was inimical to their principles, South Carolina became the first of eleven States that seceded from the Union, with South Carolina seceding on December 20, 1860, and later it was South Carolina that fired the first shots of the Civil War when they fired upon the Fort Sumter, a Fort held by Federal hands, that South Carolina wrongly believed belong to South Carolina and the new Confederacy.  

There are many fundamental flaws within those that seceded, of which, the first is that no State, under any circumstance, can simply decide on its own, through its own State elected representatives or some other means, to just up and leave the Union, for the United States is a compact of States that have voluntarily bound themselves together into a Federal union, and hence their individual sovereignty outside of the United States, in which they are essentially their own country or their own nation, is not an option that any State can Constitutionally make by its own volition, for that option is not available to them.  In addition, no State within this Union, was or is currently sovereign unto itself, therefore, even the semantics of the word "secession" are fundamentally flawed, for to secede is not permitted within the Union, so that those that "seceded" did not legally secede, in fact, they were in rebellion against the Union, and it is this rebellion, that the Union had the Constitutional right to suppress, which it did. Third, the Constitution is the supreme law of this land, its laws, treaties, debts, obligations, lands, infrastructures, and so on and so forth, are owned by the people, represented by their elected representatives of such a people, all ruled within a Constitutional government, divided into the three branches of judicial, executive, and legislative.

Further to the above points, the other forty-nine States of this Union do not have the right to force the secession of any one State from this Union, for this is a present-day compact of fifty States of which this Union is inviolable. In addition, secession or rebellion is detrimental to the continual sovereignty of the nation, for foreign adversaries in times of such, see the opportunity to interfere within this domestic Union for their own advantages, so that a Union that will not stand strongly together, endangers the Union, by inviting foreign interference.  It so then follows, that certain States of this Union that have greater natural resources or significant populations or are far wealthier in aggregate than other States of this Union, lacking clarity of Constitutional law, and its sacred compact, may choose to believe that they can essentially extort terms from the other member States of the Union so as to remain within the Union, or else they will choose their own way.  That belief, if it does so exist, is fundamentally flawed, it is not only disunion, not only secession in its talk, not only rebellion, but at its core, it is treason, and has no place in a country that provides its United States citizens ballots to make fairly their democratic choices.

The 10% Tithe and Transparency

Churches are institutions that should primarily exist in order to bring comfort, wisdom, fellowship, teaching, sanctuary, love, and other positive Christian attributes to those that attend that church and should also be good community members.  Apparently, it's believed that in order for churches to perform well their function, they typically in one form or another, require tithes or donations or bequests from those that attend their church, and therein lays a fundamental problem.

The business of churches should never be about money, in any of its many forms and functions, for the true business of any legitimate church is to be a benefit for the constituents that attend such, and a benefit to their society, of which, if those constituents do not have the ready means to money, than the church can still exist by the simple gathering and congregation of like-minded people, joining together to worship their Creator, and to help support one another, which does not necessitate a building structure of any sort, though such a building brings creature comfort and convenience.

So too, our minds and hands are capable of producing and creating things that may not bring forth a direct monetary compensation, but are creative forms of labor that produce things of worth, that a church can then draw upon, so to pigeon-hole anybody and insist that a proper churchgoer must produce 10% of their paycheck and thereby donate it to the church coffers is fundamentally flawed, for it is in the volunteering of the congregant, the love and faithfulness of such, the service of church members to their God, as well as to their community, that defines the true effectiveness of what it truly means to be a Christian, and monetary donations while having their place are not the sine qua non of what merits true Christian faithfulness.

Churches that insist upon tithing as a point of honor or even to the insistence that paycheck stubs be provided to the church so that proper tithing can be calculated must be held accountable to the very things that they hold their constituents accountable for; that is to say, if a given church insists on its members religiously making their tithes, than that church, in return, should be completely transparent about its accounting books, in regards to where these tithes go, who in the church benefits, what bills are paid, what things are accomplished with the money, and further to the point, the very people providing the money for the church, should be permitted to have a strong say as to what is done with that money and the prudence or lacking result thereof of it.

Anyone, who gives up money to any church organization, or gives up labor, or gives up their free time to such an organization, has not only a right to know thoroughly what is going on at that church organization, but one can easily say, has a duty to know what is going on, for that money, and even that labor, or even their good head on their shoulders, are all gifts from God, and as faithful stewards of those gifts, it is their incumbent responsibility to see that these gifts are being appropriately and prudently utilized at that church for the betterment of the congregants and of society.

So that, churches that impress and insist upon their congregants that they require their financial donations, must be completely transparent with their devotees, for those that ask loudest and that make the biggest noise, will one day stand before the Most High God and be call to their account, whereas those that walk softly and lead by good example, recognize that "…the Kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17: 21).

Standing armies and the destruction of democracy

America's inception was fundamentally based partly upon the fact that British troops and British conscripts came to America to enforce the British crown' desires, taxes, and to thereby stamp their authority upon the colonists, which lead to the uprising of the colonists, outright revolutionary war, and eventually to American independence.  Perhaps, the colonists would not have become independent from the British crown, if Great Britain had not made the fatal error in regards to imposing military force upon the colonists, as opposed to reasoning out the differences between the two parties, which had worked out for so well for so long.

Today, in America, there are two types of essentially "standing armies", the military arm which is utilized to maintain our presence and authority all over the world, and the various types of policing agencies, such as the police, but also agencies such as the FBI, and all those that from the support for such groups.  The combined numbers of these types of standing armies are in excess of well over two million peoples, and they are professional, well trained, extremely well armed, with a high degree of integration as well as intelligence, and in unity, cannot be vanquished by any militia or personal-based counter force in America.

Many Americans see the above as a very good thing, but the most basic problem is that when the people cede the armament of the nation to what is in substance, a professional standing army, the question becomes, is this policing arm of the state actually for the people, or actually for certain specific elements of the state, for the difference, between the two, is the difference between a vibrant democracy which has a right to protect and to serve its constituents as compared to a false democracy, in which, the force of the state, answers not to the people, but to an elite status quo.

America has been in existence, long enough, that the answer to the above question can easily be seen by the history of how this standing army treats the heartland of America.  For instance, in 1786, disgruntled revolutionary soldiers who had served faithfully for the cause, did not receive the anticipated pay for such service, and because of their unpaid debts, were subject to confiscation of farming lands that they own, so Shays' rebellion was their response to this injustice, of which, the federal government made its stand protecting its armory against this rebellion and defeated them.  During our civil war, conscription became a requirement in order to add men to the Union cause, of which riots broke out in New York city, because of the perceived injustice of such a draft, as well as a legitimate protest that not all were in favor of the Union cause, so that these riots were met by federal troops that quelled the rioters by their superior firepower and strength.  In the coal mining region of West Virginia, in 1921, the powerful mining owners effectively made it impossible for the miners to unionize and further controlled the activities of the miners by utilizing their own private detective force, so that when the miners finally rebelled at this continued injustice, the mining interests combined with the force and firepower of the sheriff and his cohorts put down this incipient miner rebellion.

Again and again, throughout American history, whether the people rebel or riot, the instrument of the state, is always used to destroy or to control those that are in rebellion, caring not whether their cause is legitimate, but only caring that they are silenced through the power of the state, so that, it is this power, that effectively coerces compliance by the people to support or to acquiesce to whatever policy that the status quo so desires, whether it is just or not.   This signifies that when the state has powerful standing armies, well trained, and in league with the justice system, than the people don't really have a true voice, for to voice their protest, invites the full armed power of the state to neutralize them.

How to kill thousands of unarmed civilians and get away with it

For a normal well-adjusted person, it isn't easy to kill anyone at anytime for any reason, especially if that person is unarmed, or defenseless, or old, or a woman, or a child, because doing so, actually killing someone in more or less, cold blood, negates much of what it means to be a conscientious sentient human being to begin with.  So too, it is a lot more difficult to kill someone without the aid of a weapon such as a gun or a large knife, because to kill someone with your bare hands or with a hard stone will often necessitate an extraordinary effort and a sustained desire to do so, in addition to the fact that the person that you are trying to kill, will most likely be trying to protect, defend, or to escape, so then to accomplish such a killing task, is exhausting from a physical standpoint.  But, it also is exhausting from a mental standpoint, because this is all happening in real time, with real humans, at very close proximity, which is basically a form of purposeful fratricide, which means that if somehow you can addle your mind so that you don't consciously recognize that you are killing a fellow human being, or convince yourself that the person being extinguished by your hands is not fully human, or is less than human, or demonized that person in some way, than it becomes easier to accomplish the task at hand.

This means, that military operations know that hand-to-hand combat is something to be avoided at all costs, not only because the resulting kill ratio will be distressingly low, but that it also takes a very large psychological toll on the participants, so having weapons, sophisticated weapons, makes killing other human beings, a lot easier because it can be done at a distance, in which as distance increases, the moral qualms of what you are actually accomplishing are significantly reduced, because in your mind, you can begin to proselytize that you aren't really killing people, but that you are simply hitting or engaging"targets" or objects or especially "bad guys", which implies, of course, that you must be one of the "good guys".

Still, Americans don't like to see their own men and women killed or harmed in all of the wars that America gets involved in, so that the military has had to make a significant adjustment since the debacle of Vietnam, which is to utilize far less "boots on the ground" and far more air power, air strikes, heavy artillery, and anything that can rain significant hellish damage upon the opponent without actually endangering American soldiers.  Unfortunately, the fundamental problem with bombing and heavy artillery is not that these weapons don't kill, because they do a very good job at killing, but that these weapons are blunt in their killing power, so that whatever is in their target range is going to either get hurt real bad, or die, and that obviously includes civilians, and non-combatants of all ages, male or female. 

For instance, as reported by airwars.org, in regards to coalition airstrikes of Syria and Iraq, from August 8, 2014 through September 15, 2017, "…that a minimum of 5,486 to 8,414 civilians are likely to have died in Coalition actions…", of which, America stands accused by recognized international tribunals of no war crimes, whatsoever, while the establishment media in conjunction with the military, spins the tale that they regret any and all overseas civilian deaths, but pushes the lie that in order to get the "bad guys" there will regretfully be some collateral damage.  The truth of the matter is that when bombs are dropped, and heavy artillery is fired into known civilian areas, civilians are going to die, and when that is not considered to be a crime against humanity, then that is exactly how you get away with killing thousands of civilians, and because those dropping the bombs do not care to see and do not care to experience their lethal destructive power of their bombs, it is rather easy for them to assuage their conscience by believing the lie, that their mission was for the betterment and safety of the world, but, in truth, it most definitely was not.

Airline Passengers and Class

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which has authority for the security of such, for those traveling from one destination to another that involves the United States homeland, and in particular, are common to see at virtually any major airport within America, though, surprisingly, there are some notable exceptions, such as the San Francisco airport, in which private screeners are used instead, though, such screening and permission are actually granted under the aegis of Homeland Security.

There probably aren't many passengers that are happy to go through the inconvenience and sometimes the embarrassment of TSA screening, whichmay involved invasive pat downs, the necessity to take off or out one's belts, wallets, shoes, and so forth,  the removal of laptops and other assorted items from one's baggage, with some unfortunate souls having to endure even more intensive private screening away from other passengers, as well as the annoyance and the confiscation of certain personal items violating rather arbitrary approved carry-on items, in addition to the time wastage and long lines which can result in a missed flight, or lacking proper identification which can do the same, to the actual denial of admission to your flight, are all part of the comprehensive TSA process.  For the millions of passengers that fly each year, few are appreciative of the consideration and courtesy by TSA officers, rather, many see them as bureaucratic flunkies, that are incapable of assessing the situation right to begin with, and make mountains out of molehills, and are arbitrary, creepy, and sometimes corrupt. 

Though, many people do express the need for some sort of airplane security, so as to avert any other future airline terrorist events, the precision and professionalism needed to conduct such in a thorough but efficient manner, seems to not be in the TSA playbook.  However, the TSA, came to the decision or had the decision made for them, that if instead of treating all passengers as potential criminals, if they instead divided passengers into the privileged class and left all others as potential criminals, that their effective approval rating by the people that really matter would increase considerably, for while America speaks loudly about equality and fairness, it doesn't actually practice it.  So that, for those that have $85 to pay for TSA pre-check, and  are willing to provide their respective identifying information as well as to show up at a satellite office to be fingerprinted,  if they are thereby approved, they are now accorded their own TSA pre-check line, in which, they won't have to worry about suffering through an enhanced pat-down, or the inconvenience of taking off certain items of clothing or unpacking certain things from their carry-on, but will typically be treated more with "kids' gloves" and therefore glide through security through a shorter line and probably a more considerate attitude by the TSA crew.

This means, for those that hardly travel at all, or don't wish to devote $85 to TSA pre-check, or know that because of a previous arrest, conviction, or something else, that they aren't model citizens, that they are effectively forever placed in the category of "those that need to be watched", whereas those that have money, or their company pays the fee for them, or are boring, obedient, or even good citizens, don't have to go though the inconvenience and indignity of the TSA pat down, signifying that when it comes to travel in America, that there are two basic classes, those that are treated with respect, and those that are treated with contempt.  So that in America, it is only too obvious, certain oppressive rules apply only to those other people, and never to those that are favored or coddled by administration policies.

You can't lead from the back

To be a true leader, one can't just talk about what needs to be done, or strategize about what should be done, or delegate solely to others what they believe must be done, one has to instead, in order to be really effective, stand in front of one's people, and make them to know, that the things that need to be accomplished, start first at the very top, and therefore one must lead by example to demonstrate that through the cooperation of teamwork and a collective focused desire, great things can be accomplished. 

It isn't enough for a charismatic leader to talk the talk, that leader must also walk the walk.  It isn't fair or responsible to place the entire burden and the risk on everyone else, for those that want others to risk endangerment must be willing to place their own self in some sort of peril, also, or the words that they have spoken aren't the words of a leader, but the words of a protected and coddled boss. 

This doesn't mean that in a military situation, that the five-star general literally puts himself in actual harm's way, for the value of that general is so great that the risk of doing this, would be foolish, but the general must be fully aware of the risks involved for his men, and take full responsibility for such risks for his soldiers, andthe decisions that are made in the battle as planned, for those in authority, ultimately rest within that authority, and therefore they should and must thereby be held accountable for the outcome.

In the business world, leaders that request specific work that must be accomplished must put forth the same effort and diligence in their oversight of such work, as those actually doing the work, for those that are applying themselves to the task at hand, are a collective resource, that needs the guidance of an accomplished team leader, in order to effect a cohesive unit that will accomplish more working together in purpose, than any could do on their own or at cross purposes.

In the religious world, it simply isn’t good enough to preach a powerful message, if the person so preaching isn't living their life as a reflection of the message given to the flock, for that is the very definition of hypocrisy, for to ask something of others, but not make it applicable to oneself, demonstrates a hollowness of principle and has no place on any pulpit. 

Another reason that one must lead from the front, and cannot lead from the back, is that the people that are being addressed have their eyes and their focused attention on the person that is in front of them, not on the person that is behind them,  for they cannot see that person behind them, and besides this is a forward-thinking nation, not a backward-thinking one, and progress cannot be made without taking forward steps and those steps are made in fellowship with one's leader, because it is through that leader that barriers are broken down, goals are achieved, and headway is made. 

You can't lead from the back, because your view is blocked, so get out in front, stand on unwavering fair principles, work tirelessly for it, and do the right things.

…with liberty and justice for all

Our Pledge of Allegiance, ends with "…with liberty and justice for all," which is a wonderful sentiment, of which, though there are many faults within America and its application of fair and equitable policies, it does at a minimum, pay a reasonable homage to this sentiment, though, unfortunately, it often falls short.  Still, this is a country that gives its citizens a vote, has a strong written Constitution with liberal principles, such as freedom of speech and of the press, petitioning of the government by the people, and the free exercise of religious belief.

Now, the measure of a great nation, if it truly be great, is the very things that we hold in principle, are the principles that we first and foremost wish to see secure within other nations that we associate with on a constant and consistent basis, so that their people too, will live within a country that offers all of its people, liberty and justice.  That is to say, the greatest export that we should wish to see exported to all other nations, is the principles of our Constitutional government, because Americans believe that it is this Constitution that allowed this country to not only demonstrate that it has been truly blessed by God, it also has enabled America to become the ultimate superpower that it now represents.

While there probably isn't a country in the world, that America doesn't have trade with or diplomatic relations with, in one form or another, it would seem that America does a very poor job of exporting republican and democratic virtues to them, and instead prefers when dealing especially with unstable, poor, civil discord, and third world nations in particular, to prefer to deal with autocratic regimes, in any of its various forms.  America, by its actions, surreptitiously or not, has again and again, supported repressive regimes, overthrown elected parties within regimes, designated specific parties to back in repressive regimes, and has purposefully interfered within sovereign nations in such a way that they favor certain parties and specifically oppose certain factions.  The United States not only plays favorites, or backs favorites, but it deliberately supports autocratic regimes that it perceives will be beneficial to America, or its businesses, or its military interests.

The reason that America gets nervous about truly democratic institutions, is that convincing a whole nation, that America is the best thing for that nation, is a lot harder achievement to accomplish, as opposed to convincing a small elite clique within a nation, that they should allow American multinationals to drill for oil or to exploit other natural resources, as well as setting aside certain land areas for an American military base, or treating American business interests as a priority within that country, and so on and so forth.  America prefers to have their designated man in control of a given foreign nation that they will personally benefit and protect, in order to profit from the things that that particular country can provide to certain selected interests of the United States.

So, while America preaches the virtue of liberty and justice for all, domestically, on the other hand, way too often, it has little interest in seeing that accomplished internationally, for it selfishly wants its own way, wants to take advantage of others foibles and weaknesses, so that all this can be exploited to the advantages of the military-industrial complex and other businesses within America, because really the business of America in other foreign nations, has very little to do with liberty and justice, but rather is all about benefiting certain specific American interests, which is far easier to achieve with "tinhorn" dictators. 

Colonial America: Cheap land and their need for labor

Today, the price of real estate in any major city and its associated suburbs is very expensive, for a lot of reasons, of which the density of the respective population, income, growth, and infrastructure, are amongst some of them, but back in the days of colonial life, overpopulation was not an issue in America, in fact, those that owned their own arable land, needed laborers, especially in order to successfully produce products such as: rice, indigo, cotton, and tobacco.  This meant, particularly in the southern parts of America, that indentured servants and/or slaves, were necessary in order to create wealth for the planter class of that era, for without those indentured servants or slaves, the land itself, had very little value, for the value of that land was incumbent upon having enough laborers to create, maintain, and produce the crops that provided money for the land owner.

While today in America, some politicians may rail against immigration and the need to build a wall to preclude illegal immigrants from entering into this country, back in the colonial era, the compelling issue was the need for immigrants, for labor, for anybody of good health willing to work the land, indentured servant or not, free or not, for without that labor, lands would lie idle and fallow, producing far less than their capability would properly indicate.

This would indicate that since indentured servitude as well as slavery were legal, that both were actively pursued by the land owning class in America, with incumbent advantages of each, depending upon the location and size of the land, the climate, the capabilities of that labor, and the crops or product being so produced.  In addition, since an indentured servant, upon completion of his contract terms, now was entitled to his own land or the freedom to move to another locale for employment, there were obvious advantages to the buying of slaves to begin with, in addition to the fact that slaves produced their own progeny under the ownership of their slave masters.

Not too surprisingly, for those blessed with abundant land resources, and plenty of slave labor to work it, the economics of the situation, allowed this privileged planter class, to make good coin literally off of the backs of the slaves that worked for them, so that, over time, this became an ingrained and embedded institution so much so that without such slave labor, and in acknowledgment that there was no other cheap labor available to replace this slave labor, the plantation class wassusceptible to imminent economic collapse without their access to slavery.

Fortunately, for the plantation class, the trickle-down effect, of a vibrant economy built on slave labor, meant that merchants, banks, churches, governments, and the necessary infrastructure, all had a vested interest in keeping going what was already working, especially in consideration of the fact that slaves were legally treated by the owners as their own personal property. 

All of this meant, as this nation began to mature, that those that had no need for slavery, as well as those that saw the moral corruption of slavery, became quite uneasy with it, for it stained deeply this great nation of freedom, that held in bondage millions of people, with no effective escape or exit strategy whatsoever from this particular and peculiar institution.  Because the wealth of the south was truly built upon slave labor it would not and could not give it up, for in those times, land was cheap, and it was enslaved human labor that provided its inestimable value, so that the seeds of the civil war to come were first sown upon the exploitation of human labor yearning to breathe free.

Obedience and Responsibility

Our pets are trained to be obedient to us, as well as animals in circuses and other public shows are trained to be obedient to their task masters, but we, as humans, have a tendency to believe that since we have a consciousness and a moral code, that we will or won't behave in a manner that is callous, robotic, cruel, or inhumane, unless our mind is not right, and that therefore, those that do so, should suffer the penalty for the harm that they so cause. 

In theory, the above seems correct, but in practicality as demonstrated in real life, through war, through police officers, through social experiments as conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, it is distressing how obedient the typical human being actually is, especially when the obedience is structured in a manner, in which the person doing deeds that are harmful, is doing them under the color of perceived authority figures.

There is something to be said about obedience and its need, in particular, for children; for children need structure and guidance from adults or elder children, that have the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong, as well as the difference between things that have good as compared to bad consequences, so that to be obedient as a child, most definitely has its place.  So too, obedience or cooperation within company or employment-type situations has its relevancy, for to follow orders has a purpose of efficiency and throughput, so that, though things can probably be done in more than one way, to question that way on a continual basis, would be disruptive and thereby is not tolerated.

So too, the military and police organizations are structured in a manner, that for the most part, soldiers and officers are trained to obey orders without questioning such, because there are pertinent situations in which time is of the essence, so rather than to call upon their own human sovereignty, they work together as a cohesive unit, obeying the hierarchical structure.  Unfortunately, the downside of such unquestioned obedience which has been demonstrated time and time again, is that great abuses against innocent outside agents by military and police organizations occur because of this structure.

The rather nasty secret for why there is so much willingness to go along with the orders of a given authority figure, is the fact that if the person carrying out the order, believes that the authority figure is legitimate, because of their status, because of their uniform, because of their title, or because of their power, and in addition, if that authority figure has previously made it clear, that they will take full responsibility for the outcome of said obedience to an order, most people will justify in their mind, that it is okay to obey such an order, because they do not see themselves as being personally responsible for the outcome of their actions, but merely as an instrument for the carrying out of a particular authoritarian command.  This, in a nutshell, is the fundamental error of why there is so much hatred, strife, division, war, and destruction in this world, because "good" people, do horrible things to other people, and believe that because they are not "personally" responsible for those actions, that everything is okay.

It isn't okay, for those that allow themselves to be used as agents of evil, through obedience, through ignorance, through irresponsibility, through drinks, or through drugs, because they have forgotten the most fundamental point, that things that you do, are always your responsibility, for it is you that does them, so that for evil to remain triumphant, merely comes down to good people, and their willingness to be obedient agents of evil, because instead of listening to their own moral consciousness, they have willingly surrendered it to another, who deserves it not.

The need for literacy

The fact that so many people within nations today are literate and the fact that the world has never been more wealthy in aggregate, is most definitely not a coincidence, for the more people that are able to utilize their language skills, both written and verbal, as well as having fundamentally sound mathematical skills, the more advance civilization becomes.  For instance, the island nation, Japan, has remarkably few natural resources, including arable land, but because of its great literacy as well as its strong work ethic, Japan was able to rise from the ashes of World War II, to become the second largest economy in the world.

This would strongly indicate that literacy and the advancement of nations, go hand-in-hand, implying that education for all, should be one of the most basic tenets of any truly civilized nation, but some dictatorial governments, recognize that literacy is most definitely a two-edge sword, for a population that can easily and readily communicate with one another as well as understanding the lay of the land, often results in the masses being far more difficult to control, and therein lies the problem, for an enlightened population may well perceive, relatively easily, that their present-day government is not beneficial and will consequently press for change.

This means, that governments that do not encourage literacy or take away the opportunity for literacy from certain segments of the population, such as females, religious or ethnic minorities, or the poor, deliberately do so, so as to maintain their power, recognizing that an intelligent population, is a population well-armed, making them a clear and present danger to the regular order of things.  However, to take the resources of one's mind, and not to develop it, means that the country as a whole will lose productivity, will lose in virtually all areas of advancement, in order to maintain their control, weakening the nation from within, and stymieing the opportunities of growth of the general population, as well as making the uneducated far more dependent upon the generosity of the state.

The reason that certain nations fear literacy is that they fear the free-thinking of liberated minds, competing against the unfairness of a country ruled by a privileged class for the primary benefit of that class, which exploits the underclass in order to enrich themselves, at the expense of that underclass.  The thing about literacy is that literacy in all of its many aspects is the very best way for those that lack material things as well as present-day opportunities, to obtain the very things that they lack, by applying themselves diligently to that task, which is why it is feared, because of the then governmental perceived lack of control of this individual resource, and dictatorial regimes are all about maintaining order and control.

Then too, the other downside of literacy for nations, is the fact, that those that become literate with little or no moral structure, may decide to utilize their skill set in a manner that benefits them in a selfish way, at the expense of others, even literate others, that aren't as perceptive, diabolical,  or intelligent.  This implies that great nations make it a point to not only educate their population but to indoctrinate them in the ways that a good citizen should think and behave, so that through the checks and balances of societal norms, good citizens are ever alert to those that would unfairly usurp what is rightfully theirs.

Manipulation, Control, and Freedom

We are born free, even in an un-free world we are free in the sense that our minds, our decisions, our actions are our own choices, albeit, all come with consequences, of which some can be rather dire for us, or beneficial.  Societies have gotten larger, as we are now far removed from simple tribal societies, along with the fact that the world has gotten a whole lot smaller, so that almost all of us, have common touchstones, which are actually there for a reason, of which, the most basic reason is to have commonality amongst people that aren't necessarily homogeneous to begin with.

The most important thing for any individual to recognize is that having the gift of a free will, is an awesome personal responsibility that we must constantly be cognitive of or we can find it compromised if we are not diligent in protecting it.  That is to say, cooperation is very important in any society, for a lot of reasons, good or bad, so too is obedience in any of its many forms, but too often, people have a strong tendency to put their mind on "cruise control" and just do things to get along, or out of habit, or in accordance with what other people are doing, or out of fear of punishment, without actually consciously acknowledging that their actions are their actions, and hence ultimately that they must take responsibility for their actions and cannot, though they might, foist the ultimate responsibility of such, onto someone else's shoulders, especially when it appears by doing so, they have done that, successfully.

This means that most every day, most people suffer through situations in which someone or some situation is trying to control or manipulate our person so as to control our behavior or decisions in a manner that will better some entity: personal, corporate, governmental, or otherwise.  There might not be a problem with any of this, if, the overall control or manipulation is done in conjunction with the general betterment of society, which is all to the good.  However, mankind is a selfish creature, as well as there being corporate, governmental, and hierarchical entities, that have a need for general obedience and cooperation in order to accomplish their objectives.  It is this selfishness, it is these entities, that purposely develop strategies that take advantage of basic human psychological traits and then utilizes them for the benefit of that selfishness, ideally done, with the person being manipulated, not really consciously recognizing such or choosing to suppress it.

Too many times we are trained by our parents, by our schooling, by our government, and by our employment, that in order to perform and to function correctly, we need to toe the company line, and that cooperation to directives from our superiors or those that are in power, which effectively makes them our superior, is the primary directive that we must follow.  This, whether done in a subtle manner or not, is the very first and often fatal step to interpreting the world in a manner controlled or manipulated by another mindset, in which we consciously end up suppressing our opinions and viewpoints, in order to be in compliance to that specific authority, seldom recognizing that if we only thought it through, we would understand that actions accomplished by ourselves, under false pretenses or not, are still our actions, so that those that guide our behavior in a manner that we are compliant to, have essentially replaced our free will with a controlling mechanism, making us forgo that great gift of freedom and free will, by replacing it instead with a behavioral pattern in conformance with those that are our puppeteers.

When you have everything, you can't ever get more of it

What appears to keep economies growing is the ever present desire in most people, rich or poor, to desire strongly to have "more".  That is to say, many successful people want even more money, or more prestige, or more material things, or more status, or more of this or more of that, it is always more, more, more.  Those that don't have much of anything also want more, because they have so little to begin with, and aspire to accelerate themselves out of their current unfortunate circumstances.

This desire for more, to have more, is probably for the most part, beneficial for motivation,  however, misapplied or taken to obsession like levels it most definitely is not, for if you see the world as a world of limited resources, or of finite limits, than one recognizes implicitly that the more that you get, the less that is available for others to get, and this type of selfishness, is not beneficial for the person trying to get it all, nor is it beneficial for those that are on the "losing" end.

One way to recognize the fundamental flaw of getting it all, is to understand that if one person, or group of people, were to functionally have everything, and by everything, this means that there isn't anything else worth getting, than knowing that they now have everything, rather than bringing them complete satisfaction, peace, and serenity, would instead bring the fear that their lives were now being lived in recognition, since they now have it all, that they will now and forever into the future, only have less, because there is no more to get, and knowing that there is nothing left but unlimited downside, this becomes functionally debilitating to them.

This would signify that the desire to have more, more, more, is a fundamentally flawed premise, for to have all of any particular thing, means that rather than relaxing and enjoying the luxury of your given position or status, you instead, are worried about losing what it is that you have strived so hard to obtain, by means fair or foul, leaving you with less, less, less, for there is no more to get or obtain.

So that, someone of wisdom, must then recognize that to have everything, cannot possibly be the answer to the most meaningful question in life, for to have all, means ultimately that you must destroy all, in order to never lose back or share what you have already won.  This then signifies that perhaps the most liberating way to look upon life is not that we wish to own or to have everything, but rather that we are most free of the limitations and paradox of having everything , if we do not get attached to this world as the be-all and end-all of everything, for it surely, cannot be.

This means that if your happiness depends upon things that are ephemeral such as all material things, including physical things and the feelings that these invoke; recognize that that happiness cannot and will not sustain itself, for it is, despite whatever length of time, ultimately transitory and temporary.  So if you want it all you will never obtain it, and your personal cycle of despair will never be broken until you finally recognize that you are actually on the wrong path which cannot ever be made right by being on it, for the very path that you need to be on, is the path that brings wholeness, oneness and unity with the universal consciousness which is limitless, timeless, and eternal.